Download PDF The water, climate, and food nexus: linkages, challenges and emerging solutions 1st edi
The Water, Climate, and Food Nexus: Linkages, Challenges and Emerging Solutions 1st Edition Mohamed
Behnassi
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/the-water-climate-and-food-nexus-linkages-challenge s-and-emerging-solutions-1st-edition-mohamed-behnassi/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Ameenah Gurib-Fakim · Mirza Barjees Baig · Mohammed Bahir
Editors
The Water, Climate, and Food Nexus
Linkages,
Challenges and Emerging Solutions
Editors
Mohamed Behnassi
Economic, Social and Environmental Council (ESEC) and Center for Environment, Human Security and Governance (CERES) Ministry of Higher Education and Innovation Rabat, Morocco
Ameenah Gurib-Fakim
John Wesley School of Leadership Carolina University Winston-Salem, NC, USA
Mohammed Bahir
High Energy and Astrophysics Laboratory Faculty of Sciences Semlalia
Cadi Ayyad University Marrakech, Morocco
Abdulmalek A. Al-Shaikh
Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water and Desert Research
King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Mirza Barjees Baig
Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water and Desert Research
King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
ISBN 978-3-031-50961-2
ISBN 978-3-031-50962-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50962-9
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Paper in this product is recyclable.
Foreword by Dr. Rachael McDonnell
It has always seemed incongruous that water security and food security challenges have not been tackled together with integrated policies, investments, and technologies. This result of different approaches that have had a more singular focus and this has been captured in the important FAO 2021 State of Land and Water Report: Systems at Breaking Point (FAO 2021) with clear evidence given of the alarming trends in both the use and deterioration in quality and quantity of water and land systems around the world. The resulting losses in non-renewable water resources and of productive land from poor food and water systems management highlight the outcomes of opposing policies, governance, and practices in many countries. Limited investments and management in the development and maintenance of water systems have ensured both wastage and under-utilization of different water resource options that could have supported both direct consumption and agricultural practices. In both water and food security developments, the increasing impacts of climate change on precipitation variability and intensity, as well as changes in demography, socioeconomic, and political systems are ensuring pressure on land and water ecosystems is more intense than ever, and many are stressed to critical breaking points.
Thus, the need for new thinking, evidence, policies, and science across the water/ food/climate nexus has never been more urgent. The chapters in this book provide important insight into the nexus linkages, challenges, and emerging solutions in different countries, with many of case studies coming from countries facing some of the greatest challenges to delivering security. The approaches considered fall across a broad spectrum from on-farm technologies through to political ecology. They highlight just how complex and multidimensional integrated approaches need to be adopted to face the upcoming crisis threatening many countries over the next decade.
Several chapters have highlighted that climate change is changing the base operating conditions for water management, whether for a water utility operator or a farmer. Large-and small-scale storage systems, groundwater reserves, desalinization, recycled water, and smart-data systems are all part of a plethora of technologybased approaches for managing the increasing impacts of droughts and floods, and changes in timings of the growing season. The provision of new data such as from
soil moisture sensors, AI-enhanced climate information systems, and precipitation forecasting can help ensure water is managed and used with an understanding of nearterm conditions. Many of the book chapters highlight the advances in data science and in operations that are already supporting this. Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) can also bring genetic innovations and updates in on-farm practices that can offset some of the emerging challenges from limited water availability. Conservation agriculture is just one of many evapotranspiration/soil moisture-saving approaches in CSA for adaptation and resilience building, and various chapters highlight developments that reflect the local context.
Technologies in both water and agriculture management need to be supported by policy and investment drivers. The increasing role of blended finance and impact investment to small and medium enterprises is bringing important scaling of developments in bundled services and technologies. This increasing engagement of the private sector, alongside the traditional national agricultural research and extension services, can be one of several conduits for delivering nexus solutions at the scale needed to address the emerging crises.
These efforts need to be supported by policy drivers and coherence that really balance water, food, and climate security. Tradeoff analyses across policies of different ministries are needed, based on both present and future conditions, so integrated planning is possible, and adjustments made to ensure incentives and drivers for the delivery of one are not at the expense of the other. In the interim report Turning the Tide from the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, the major recommendations highlight some of the priorities needed in water and food policy realignment ‘…we must phase out some USD 700 billion of subsidies in agriculture and water each year, which tend to generate excessive water consumption and other environmentally damaging practices. We must drastically reduce leakages in water systems (‘non-revenue water’) that cost billions annually, by prioritizing sustained maintenance efforts’ (GCEW 2023). Some chapters of the book touch on the importance of policy instruments and the political economy to help realize nexus securities.
I hope that this publication will be able to offer answers to students and specialists familiar with water, food and climate nexus issues with new insights and solutions. These need to be scaled at an unprecedented pace and coverage if there is any hope of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals 2 and 6, as well as all the others that are dependent on healthy water and food systems.
Dr. Rachael McDonnell Rome, Italy
R.Mcdonnell@cgiar.org
References
FAO (2021) The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture—systems at breaking point. Synthesis report 2021. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7654en
Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) (2023) Turning the tide: a call to collective action. https://watercommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Turning-the-TideReport-Web.pdf
Dr. Rachael McDonnell is the Deputy Director General of the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), where she leads 170 researchers across 12 offices to address global development challenges related to food, land, and water systems under a climate crisis.
Foreword by Prof. Dr. Eddy J. Moors
The world is facing a water crisis, and the challenges it poses are largely created by the global population growth and the related increase in food and energy production and use, with climate change exacerbating the problems more and more severely. It is evident that, because these drivers are interconnected, solutions will have to be sought in a holistic manner. The water, energy, food, and environment (WEFE) nexus approach will help in our search for sustainable development pathways.
The present book describes a number of options such as the use of alternative water resources, e.g., re-use of (un)treated wastewater, water harvesting, demand management, etc. The book also describes experiences with these options in certain regions. An important question will be: ‘How can we implement these innovations?.’
In 2020, UN Water launched the accelerator framework for the Sustainable Development Goal 6 ‘Ensure access to water and sanitation for all’ with five pillars: data, finance, governance, innovations, and capacity development, showing the need for the water sector to include aspects such as finance and governance in their thinking. In 2023, the UN created the Water Action Agenda to speed up implementation of urgently needed improvements in the water sector. From the related UN 2023 Water conference, it became clear that engaging with other sectors is of paramount importance to implement this Water Action Agenda. The WEFE nexus will be an important tool to ensure the involvement of different sectors.
As Albert Einstein once said, ‘We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.’ We need something else than business as usual. We need capacity; we need another way of working for water and sanitation access; and we need innovative approaches. Yes, we all agree that efforts must be accelerated, but despite the development and the political endorsement of the global acceleration framework, it remains unclear how in practice we will fulfill the justified and legitimate expectations of those without water and sanitation access.
The two billion people who lack access to safely managed drinking water aren’t helped by declarations, promises, or goals—they need access to water and sanitation, and they need it soon, if not now. The many people around the world who suffer in damaged environments need healthy ecosystems for their survival and their livelihoods. And the many people whose security is threatened by water-related conflict
at local, national, and international levels need peace. To deliver for them, we must change our approach.
The fastest way to implement a new approach is through the development of capacity. Investments in hardware are not sufficient. There is also a need to invest in the less concrete parts, to ensure for example operation and maintenance, but also to create knowledge to take the right decisions, to develop investment plans, to propose adjustment of or new policies; in short: create local capacity for a long-term sustainable development of our water resources.
Capacity development is about transferring knowledge to individuals, creating leadership, i.e., taking the responsibility to use this knowledge. Capacity development is also about institutions, creating enabling conditions, facilities, and organizations that allow for the implementation of innovations, measures, and policies needed to achieve Sustainable Development Goals in which water is key.
Taking groundwater as an example. It is clear that groundwater can play a crucial role in solving some of the pressing issues in our water supply. The development of a sustainable use of the available groundwater resources requires investments next to an appropriate governance system. In numerous reports and conferences, this has been highlighted. It seems a no-brainer that also capacity will be required to implement and, even more important, maintain the infrastructure required, next to an increase in the awareness of the value of water. However, rarely the needs and possibilities for financing capacity are mentioned.
It should be noted that capacity building is often required at all levels, for example, at primary schools for awareness raising, at vocational training for operation and maintenance, and at academic level for local leadership. The latter is important as, in some areas, there are still a lot of unknowns surrounding safe yield, recharge requirements, water quality, and other matters that may threaten a sustainable use of these groundwater resources. Sharing such knowledge between water experts is not enough. For the implementation of technical and social innovations, decision makers across different sectors and politicians should also be involved.
Additionally, as conditions keep on changing, with climate change being just one of them, capacity to adapt to these conditions is required. Therefore, long-term sustainability can only be achieved by creating creative thinkers in the region that are capable of taking leadership and are able to handle new developments and conditions as well as the present needs. Attracting and keeping these local (potential) water leaders in the water sector also require good human resource management with career perspectives for man and women.
Is it not surprising that although it is evident from literature that investing in education gives the highest return on investment for society, it still seems difficult to find financing for the required capacity development in the water sector!
I hope this book will help to show the way forward and that together we are able to make the urgently needed actions to improve the present and future management of our precious water.
Prof. Dr. Eddy J. Moors Rector IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
Delft, Netherlands
e.moors@un-ihe.org
Foreword by Prof. Shahbaz Khan
Climate change will have major impacts on the availability of water for growing food and on crop productivity in the decades to come, warns a new FAO survey report, which summed up current scientific understanding of impacts, highlights knowledge gaps and areas for attention. The Climate Change, Water, and Food Security book is a comprehensive survey of existing scientific knowledge on the anticipated consequences of climate change for water use in agriculture.
The major impacts of climate change on water for farming include reductions in river runoff and aquifer recharges in the Mediterranean and the semi-arid areas of the Americas, Australia, and southern Africa—regions that are already water-stressed. In Asia, large areas of irrigated land that rely on snowmelt and mountain glaciers for water will also be affected, while heavily populated river deltas are at risk from a combination of reduced water flows, increased salinity, and rising sea levels.
Meanwhile, an acceleration of the world’s hydrological cycle is anticipated as rising temperatures increase the rate of evaporation from land and sea. Rainfall will increase in the tropics and higher latitudes but decrease in already dry semi-arid to mid-arid latitudes and in the interior of large continents. A greater frequency in droughts and floods will need to be planned for, but already water-scarce areas of the world are expected to become drier and hotter.
Even though estimates of groundwater recharge under climate change cannot be made with any certainty, the increasing frequency of drought can be expected to encourage further development of available groundwater to buffer the production risk for farmers.
And the loss of glaciers—which support around 40% of the world’s irrigation— will eventually impact the amount of surface water available for agriculture in key producing basins.
Increased temperatures will lengthen the growing season in northern temperate zones but will reduce the length almost everywhere else. Coupled with increased rates of evapotranspiration, this will cause the yield potential and water productivity of crops to decline.
So, to respond to these new challenges, actions can be taken by national policymakers, regional and local watershed authorities, and individual farmers. One key
area requiring attention is improving the ability of countries to implement effective systems for ‘water accounting’—the thorough measurement of water supplies, transfers, and transactions in order to inform decisions about how water resources can be managed and used under increasing variability. Water accounting in most developing countries is very limited, and allocation procedures are nonexistent, ad hoc, or poorly developed. So, helping developing countries acquire good water accounting practices and developing robust and flexible water allocations systems will be a first priority.
At the farm level, growers can change their cropping patterns to allow earlier or later planting, reducing their water use and optimizing irrigation. Yields and productivity can be improved by shifting to soil moisture conservation practices, including zero-and minimum tillage. Planting deep-rooted crops would allow farmers to better exploit available soil moisture.
Mixed agroforestry systems also hold promise. These systems both sequester carbon and also offer additional benefits such as shade that reduces ground temperatures and evaporation, added wind protection, and improved soil conservation and water retention.
However, small-scale producers in developing countries will face an uphill struggle in adopting such strategies. Farm size and access to capital set the limits for the scope and extent of adaptation and change at farm level. Today, many developing world farms produce yields far below their agro-climatic potential. Therefore, greater precision and focus are needed to understand the nature, scope, and location of climate change impacts on developing country water resources for agriculture, the report says, adding: ‘Mapping vulnerability is a key task at national and regional levels.’
Prof. Shahbaz Khan
Director of UNESCO Multisectoral Regional Office for East Asia and UNESCO Representative to China DPRK, Japan, Mongolia, and ROK Jakarta, Indonesia
Acknowledgements
I have been honored to share the editorship of this volume with my colleagues: Dr. Abdulmalek A. Al-Shaikh (Director of the Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water, and Desert Research, and Chair of the UN Prince Sultan International Water Prize; King Saud University, Saudi Arabia); Prof. Dr. Ameenah Gurib-Fakim (an eminent Scholar and the Former President of the Republic of Mauritius); Prof. Dr. Mirza Barjees Baig (Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water, and Desert Research, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia); and Dr. Prof. Mohammed Bahir (High Energy and Astrophysics Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, Morocco). I seize this opportunity to thank all of them for their valuable collaboration during the publishing process. The real value of this volume should be, however, credited to the chapters’ authors, whose works had been accepted for publication after a rigorous peer review and proofreading. Their collaboration, reactivity, and engagement during the process were indeed very remarkable and impressive. Therefore, any shortcomings are undoubtedly the editors’ responsibility.
The chapters published in this volume are also the result of the invaluable contribution made by reviewers, who generously engaged their time and energy to provide insight and expertise regarding the volume’s chapters, thus enhancing their quality. On behalf of my co-editors, I would specifically like to acknowledge, with sincere and deepest thanks, the following reviewers:
. Prof. Dr. Mohammed Abdelbaset Hessane. Laboratory of Geosciences, Environment and Associated Resources, Faculty of Sciences, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Morocco.
. Prof. Dr. Kamel.zouari. Laboratory of Radio-Analysis and Environment (LRAE), National School of Engineers, Sfax, Tunisia.
. Prof. Dr. Najiba Chkir. Laboratory of Radio-Analysis and Environment (LRAE), National School of Engineers, Sfax, Tunisia.
. Dr. Muhammad Irfan. School of Economics and Management, Xiamen University, Malaysia.
. Prof. Dr. Ihtsham Ul Haq Padda. Head, Department of Economics, Federal Urdu University for Arts Science and Technology (FUUAST), Islamabad, Pakistan.
. Dr. Irfan Ahmad Baig. Dean, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, MNSAU—Multan. Pakistan.
. Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Malik. Director (R), Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, Islamabad, Pakistan.
. Dr. Christian Siderius. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE, London, UK.
. Eng. Dr. Isaiaka Toyin Busari. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Kwara State, Nigeria.
. Eng. Dr. Clement Kirotich Kiptum. School of Engineering, University of Eldoret, Eldoret, Kenya.
. Dr. Asif Sardar. National Center of Industrial Biotechnology, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
. Prof. Dr. Rafiq Islam. Soil, Water, and Bioenergy Resources, The Ohio State University South Centers, USA.
. Prof. Dr. Özlem Korkut. Atatürk Üniversity, Faculty of Engineering, Erzurum, Turkey.
. Dr. Adiqa Kausar Kiani. Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
. Dr. Muhammad Abid. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
. Dr. Asim Jilani. Center of Nanotechnology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
. Dr. Muhammad Rizwan. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
. Dr. Muhammad Aamir Shakoor. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Bahauddin Zakariya University (BZU), Multan. Pakistan.
. Dr. Amer Masood. Department of Space Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
. Dr. Syed Muhammad Hasan Raza. Department of Space Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
. Dr. Muhammad Amin. Institute of Geo-Information and Earth Observation, Pir Mehar Ali Shah University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
. Dr. Fiaz Ahmad. Physiology and Chemistry Section, Central Cotton Research Institute, Multan, Pakistan.
. Dr. Omar Jouzdan. Expert—Soil and Water Sciences—Visiting Researcher, Lancaster University—UK.
. Prof. Dr. M. M. Abd El-Azeim. Vice-Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil and Water Sciences. Minia University, Egypt.
. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Arshad. King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
. Dr. Ammari Abdelhadi. The National Higher School of Hydraulics, Blida, Algeria.
. Aftab Ahmad Sheikh. Institute. of Soil Chemistry and Environmental Sciences, Kala Shah Kaku, Pakistan.
. Prof. Dr. Rafiq Islam. Program Director—Soil, Water, and Bioenergy Resources, Ohio Sustainability Institute, College of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CFAES), The Ohio State University, USA.
. Dr. Asif Sardar. National Center of Industrial Biotechnology, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
. Prof. Dr. Özlem Korkut. Faculty of Engineering, Atatürk Üniversity, Erzurum, Turkey.
. Dr. Adiqa Kausar Kiani. Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Pakistan.
. Dr. Khondker Iftekhar Iqbal. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Darussalam.
. Prof. Dr. Syed Serajul Islam. Department of Political Science, Lakehead University, Orillia, ON, Canada.
. Prof. Dr. Shaikh M. Kais. Department of Sociology, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh.
. Dr. Farhat Konain Shujahi. National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad. Pakistan.
. Dr. Muhammad Rizwan. Researcher, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
. Dr. Muhammad Mubeen. Department of Environmental Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Vehari Campus, Pakistan.
. Prof. Dr. Hamza Farooq Gabrial. NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan.
. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zaman. Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
. Dr. Abed A. Alataway. Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water, and Desert Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
. Dr. Turki K Alasiri. Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water, and Desert Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
. Engr. Ali Wafa Abu-Risheh. Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water, and Desert Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohamed Behnassi
About the Publishing Institutions
The Center for Environment, Human Security and Governance (CERES), Morocco
CERES, previously the North-South Center for Social Sciences (NRCS), 2008–2015, is an independent and not-for-profit research institute founded by a group of Moroccan researchers and experts in 2015 and joined by many partners worldwide. It aspires to play the role of a leading think tank in the Global South and to serve as a reference point for relevant change processes. Since its creation, CERES managed to build a robust network involving various stakeholders such as researchers, experts, Ph.D. students, decision makers, practitioners, journalists, etc. from different spheres and scientific areas. These achievements are being rewarded by the invitation of CERES members to contribute to global and regional assessments and studies (especially Ipbes, Medecc, EuroMeSco, etc.) and the invitation of the Center to become a member of the MedThink 5+5, which aims at shaping relevant research and decision agendas in the Mediterranean Basin. The Center has organized so far five international conferences and several training/building capacity workshops, provides expertise for many institutions and publishes numerous books, scientific papers, and studies which are globally distributed and recognized. These events and publications cover many emerging research areas mainly related to the human-environment nexus from multidimensional, multiscale, interdisciplinary, and policy-making perspectives. Through its initiatives, the CERES attempts to provide expertise, to advance science and its applications, and to contribute to effective science and policy interactions.
The Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental,
Water and Desert Research (PSIEWDR), King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
PSIEWDR was established in 1986 to conduct scientific research related to environmental issues and water resources. It also engages with vital issues related to the problem of aridity and the desert environment. It conducts development initiatives for the country’s desert areas, particularly programs for combating desertification in the Arabian Peninsula. PSIEWDR designed and carried out two major water harvesting and storage programs, including the construction of purpose-built infrastructure, throughout the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia using novel techniques and equipment. The institute actively applies remote sensing technologies using advanced satellite image processing systems and GIS to study the country’s environment and natural resources. In 2007, the institute published The Space Image Atlas of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and it is currently developing The Environmental Atlas of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The institute has been the primary sponsor of the biennial International Conference on Water Resources and Arid Environments (ICWRAE) held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, since 2004. The institute hosts the General Secretariat of the Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International Prize for Water (PSIPW) which honors scientists all over the world for their innovative water-related research. PSIPW, in turn, has many agreements with various international water associations as well as a close partnership with the United Nations. PSIPW and the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) jointly produce and maintain the International Space4Water Portal, an online hub for all stakeholders involved in utilizing space technologies for water resources applications.
1 The Water, Climate, and Food Nexus: Linkages, Challenges and Emerging Solutions—An Introduction ...................... 1 Mohamed Behnassi, Abdulmalek A. Al-Shaikh, Ameenah Gurib-Fakim, Mirza Barjees Baig, and Mohammed Bahir
2 The Water, Food, and Environmental Security Nexus ............. 17 Muhammad Sohail Amjad Makhdum, Rakhshanda Kousar, Muhammad Ashfaq, and Mohamed Behnassi
3 Water and Food Security in the Middle Eastern and Northern African Countries 33 Waqar Akram, Zakir Hussain, and Sultan Adeel
4 The Water-Energy-Food Nexus in Kenya: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Strategies—A Review 59 Willis Awandu, Edwin Kimutai Kanda, and Susan Namaemba Kimokoti
5 The Impact of Climate Change on Groundwater Resources in Northwestern Morocco ...................................... 71 Mohammed Bahir
6 Assessment of the Climate Change Impact on the Past and Future Evapotranspiration and Flows from a Semi-arid Environment .................................................. 95 Mohammed Bahir
7 Evolution of Historical and Future Precipitations and Temperatures Within Essaouira Basin Under Climate Change Effect ................................................. 117 Mohammed Bahir, Otman El Mountassir, and Mohamed Behnassi
8 Examining the Climate Change Phenomenon Using Temperature and Precipitation Observations: The Case of Erzurum ................................................... 149
Yasemin Kuslu and Kenan Barik
9 Effect of Climate Change on Sea Water Intrusion in the Essaouira Basin Coastal Aquifer 167
10
Mohammed Bahir, Otman El Mountassir, and Mohamed Behnassi
Analysis of Groundwater Regimes Utilizing Hydrogeological Modeling Under Climate Change Scenarios 201
Muhammad Awais, Muhammad Arshad, Jan W. Hopmans, Mirza Barjees Baig, and M. M. M. Najim
11 Hydrogeochemical Processes Regulating the Groundwater Quality and Its Suitability for Drinking and Irrigation Purpose in a Changing Climate in Essaouira, Southwestern Morocco ...................................................... 217
Mohammed Bahir, Otman El Mountassir, and Mohamed Behnassi
12 Drought Assessment in Potwar Region, Punjab Pakistan During 1981–2019 ............................................. 265
Saira Batool, Syed Amer Mahmood, and Safdar Ali Shirazi
13 Managing Agricultural Water Productivity in a Changing Climate Scenario in Indo-Gangetic Plains 281 Pavneet Kaur Kingra and Surinder Singh Kukal
14 A Sustainable Method of Production Towards Food Security Using Aquaponics: A Case Study from Oman 333
Ahmed Al-Busaidi, Mushtaque Ahmed, Wenresti Gallardo, Waad Al-Aghbari, and Yahya Al-Yahyaei
15 WastewaterReuseforAgriculture,QualitativeAspects:ACase Study of Ain Temouchent, Algeria .............................. 355
16 Water Quality and Its Health Impact in the Prefecture of Mohammedia, Morocco: A Review ........................... 379
Rachida El Morabet, Larbi Barhazi, Soufiane Bouhafa, Mohamed Behnassi, and Roohul Abad Khan
17 Basic Planning Principles of Roof Precipitation Harvesting Systems ...................................................... 409 Hasan Er and Yasemin Kuslu
18 A Political Economy of Water Security: The Case of Singapore 421
19 Water Management in Pakistan: Challenges and Way Forward .... 435 Muhammad
Nawaz Khan and Adeel Mukhtar
20 Climate Change, Water Variability, and Cooperation Along Transboundary River Basins in Perspective of Indus Water Treaty 457
Faraz Ul Haq, Ijaz Ahmad, and Noor Muhammad Khan
Postface 475
Editors and Contributors
About the Editors
Dr. Mohamed Behnassi has been nominated in July 2022 as Senior Environmentalist Expert by the Economic Social and Environmental Council (ESEC), Rabat, Morocco. Prior to this, he served as Full Professor (since 2004) and Head of Public Law in French Department at the College of Law, Economics, and Social Sciences of Agadir, Ibn Zohr University. He holds a Ph.D. in International Environmental Law and Governance (2003), a M.Sc. in Political Sciences (1997), and a B.A. in Administration (1995) from Hassan II University of Casablanca. He obtained a Diploma in International Environmental Law and Diplomacy from the University of Eastern Finland and UNEP, 2015. He is also Alumnus of the International Visitors Leadership Program of the Department of State, USA. Dr. Behnassi is currently Founding Director of the Center for Environment, Human Security and Governance (CERES). From 2015 to 2018, he was Director of the Research Laboratory for Territorial Governance, Human Security and Sustainability (LAGOS). Recently, he was appointed as Expert Evaluator for the National Center for Scientific and Technical Research (CNRST/ Morocco) and selected twice (2019–2024) as Assessment Scoping Expert and Review Editor by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and Member of the Mediterranean Experts on Climate and Environmental Change (MEDECC). He was also selected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) as Expert Reviewer of the 1st Order Draft of the Synthesis Report (SYR) of the IPCC VI Assessment Report (AR6). Accordingly, he was among the Lead Authors of the 1st Assessment Report (MAR1): Climate and Environmental Change in the Mediterranean Basin—Current Situation and Risks for the Future (MEDECC, 2021). He is Senior Researcher in the areas of international law and politics of environment and human security where he published considerable number of scientific papers and book chapters in addition to 20 books, including recent ones on: FoodSecurity and Climate-Climate Smart Food Systems—Building Resilience for the Global South (Springer, 2022); The Climate-Conflict-Migration Nexus from a Human SecurityPerspective (Springer, 2022); and Social-Ecological Systems in the Era of Risks and Insecurity—Pathways to Viability and Resilience (Springer, 2021). Dr. Behnassi serves as a reviewer for many global publishers (such as Routledge and Springer) and scientific journals with high-impact factor. He has organized many international conferences covering the above research areas, managed many research and expertise projects, and is regularly requested to provide scientific expertise nationally and internationally. Other professional activities include social compliance auditing and consultancy by monitoring human rights at work and the sustainability of the global supply chain.
Dr.AbdulmalekA.Al-Shaikh is Director of the Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water, and Desert Research at the King Saud University (KSU) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He earned his Ph.D. in Arid Land Studies from the University of Arizona, USA, in 1983. He also serves as General Secretary of the Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz International Prize for Water (PSIPW). The prize is awarded bi-annually at the United Nations Headquarters. Being Director and Research Chair, he oversees the Research Programs at the Institute. He is the team leader of many research projects concerning the environment, desertification, climate change, and water harvesting in Saudi Arabia including the King Fahd Project for Water Harvesting and Storage in Saudi Arabia, Prince Sultan Project for Villages and Hamlets Rehabilitation in Saudi Arabia, the Space Images Atlas of Saudi Arabia and the Environmental Atlas of Saudi
Arabia. Being Chairman of the international conferences on water resources and arid environments, he successfully organized them at the King Saud University. He has brought world fame water scientists to Saudi Arabia and published nine proceedings of organized international conferences. He has published extensively in journals of international repute.
Dr. Ameenah Gurib-Fakim is Professor, a Biodiversity Scientist, and Entrepreneur. She has served as the 6th and First Female President of the Republic of Mauritius (2015–2018). Prior to that, she has been Managing Director of the Centre International de D´eveloppement Pharmaceutique (CIDP) Research and Innovation as well as Professor of Organic Chemistry with an endowed chair at the University of Mauritius. Since 2001, she has served successively as Dean of the Faculty of Science and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (2004–2010). She has also worked at the Mauritius Research Council as Manager for Research (1995–1997). Dr. Gurib-Fakim earned a B.Sc. in Chemistry from the University of Surrey (1983) and a Ph.D. from the University of Exeter, UK (1987). During her academic journey, she has participated in several consultation meetings on environmental issues organized by international organizations. Between 2011–2013, she was elected and served as Chairperson of the International Council for Scientific Union—Regional Office for Africa and served as Independent Director on the Board of Barclays Bank of Mauritius Ltd. between (2012–2015). As Founding Member of the Pan African Association of African Medicinal Plants, she co-authored the first-ever African Herbal Pharmacopoeia. She has authored and co-edited 30 books, several book chapters, and scientific articles in the field of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. She has lectured extensively across the world, is a member of the Editorial Boards of major journals, and has served on technical and national committees in various capacities. Elevated to the Order of the Commander of the Star and Key by the Government of Mauritius in 2008, she has been admitted to the Order of the Chevalier dans L’Ordre des Palmes Academiques by the Government of France in 2010 and is the recipient of 5 D.Sc. (s). As Elected Fellow of several academies and societies, she received several international prizes,
including the 2007 l’Oreal-UNESCO Prize for Women in Science and the African Union Commission Award for Women in Science, 2009. She was elevated to the Order of GCSK by the Government of Mauritius and received the Legion d’Honneur from the Government of France in 2016. In 2017, she received both the lifelong achievement award of the United States Pharmacopoeia-CePat Award and the American Botanical Council Norman Farnsworth Excellence in Botanical Research Award. In 2018, she received the Order of St. George at the Semperopernball, Dresden, Germany. In 2019, she received the ‘Trailblazing Award for Political Leadership’ by the World Women Leaders Council in Iceland. In 2020, she was elected Honorary President of the International and Engineering Institute and received their 2020 5th IETI Annual Scientific Award. She also received the IAS-COMSTECH Ibrahim Memorial Award from the WIAS in Jordan. In 2021, she received the Benazir Bhutto Lifetime Achievement Award, the Obada Prize and the RUFORUM Recognition Prize 2021. In 2021, she has been appointed as Distinguished Professor at the John Wesley School of Leadership, Carolina University, USA. In June 2016, she was in the Forbes List for the 100 ‘Most Powerful Women in the World’ and first among the Top 100 Women in Africa Forbes List 2017, 2019. She is honored as one of the Foreign Policy’s 2015 Global Thinkers.
Dr. Mirza Barjees Baig is a Professor at the Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water, and Desert Research, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. He earned his MS degree in International Agricultural Extension in 1992 from the Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA, and was placed on the ‘Roll of Honor.’ He completed his Ph.D. in Extension for Natural Resource Management from the University of Idaho, USA, and was honored with the ‘1995 Outstanding Graduate Student Award.’ Dr. Baig has published extensively on the issues associated with natural resources in national and international journals. He has also made oral presentations about agriculture and natural resources and the role of extension education at various international conferences. Food waste, water management, degradation of natural resources, deteriorating environment, and their relationship with society/
community are his areas of interest. He has attempted to develop strategies to conserve natural resources, promote the environment, and develop sustainable communities. Dr. Baig started his scientific career in 1983 as a researcher at the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad, Pakistan. He served at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, as the Special Graduate Faculty from 2000 to 2005. He served as Foreign Professor at the Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU), Pakistan, through the Higher Education Commission from 2005–2009. He served as Professor of Agricultural Extension and Rural Society at the King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, from 2009–2020. He serves as well on the Editorial Boards of many international journals and is a member of many international professional organizations.
Prof. Dr. Eng. Mohammed Bahir, Ph.D. Hydrogeological Engineer, has published over 200 research/ professional papers and reports. He co-authored more than a dozen books and book chapters. He supervised and/or co-supervised more than 20 Ph.D. students. He is a reviewer of many international scientific journals with high-impact factors, including Environment, Development, and Sustainability Journal, Environmental Earth Sciences Journal, Hydrological Sciences Journal, Sécheresse, Gaia, Communicaçoés International, Science of the Total Environment, Marine and Freshwater Research Journal, Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, and Groundwater for Sustainable Development. He also coordinates more than a dozen research projects.
The Asia Research Awards, in association with Times of Research and the World Research Council, announce that Professor Mohammed Bahir has been selected as the recipient of the prestigious ASTRA 2023 (Asia’s Science, Technology, and Research Awards).
Contributors
Chérifa Abdelbaki Pan-African University Institute for Water and Energy Sciences (PAUWES), Tlemcen, Algeria; Laboratoire EOLE, Université de Tlemcen, Tlemcen, Algeria
Sultan Adeel Department of Business Administration, Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Pakistan
Ijaz Ahmad Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Mushtaque Ahmed Department of Soils, Water and Agricultural Engineering, College of Agricultural & Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
Waqar Akram Department of Accounting, Finance, and Economics, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Waad Al-Aghbari Department of Soils, Water and Agricultural Engineering, College of Agricultural & Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
Ahmed Al-Busaidi Department of Soils, Water and Agricultural Engineering, College of Agricultural & Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
Abdulmalek A. Al-Shaikh Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water & Desert Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Yahya Al-Yahyaei Department of Marine Science and Fisheries, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
Muhammad Arshad Department of Irrigation and Drainage, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Ashfaq Institute of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Awais College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Willis Awandu Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya
Mohammed Bahir High Energy and Astrophysics Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh, Morocco
Mirza Barjees Baig Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water and Desert Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Larbi Barhazi Department of Geography, LADES, FLSH-M, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Mohammedia, Morocco
Kenan Barik Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, University of Atatürk, Erzurum, Turkey
Saira Batool Center for Integrated Mountain Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Mohamed Behnassi Economic, Social and Environmental Council (ESEC), Rabat, Morocco; Center for Environment, Human Security and Governance (CERES), Rabat, Morocco; Ministry of Higher Education and Innovation, Rabat, Morocco
Halima Belarbi Laboratoire EOLE, Université de Tlemcen, Tlemcen, Algeria
Soufiane Bouhafa Department of Geography, LADES, FLSH-M, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Mohammedia, Morocco
QingLin Chen Environment and Sustainability Research Cluster, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Rachida El Morabet Department of Geography, LADES, FLSH-M, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Mohammedia, Morocco
Otman El Mountassir High Energy and Astrophysics Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh, Morocco
Hasan Er Department of Biosystem Engineering, University of Bingöl, Bingöl, Turkey
Faraz Ul Haq Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan; Center for Applied Earth Science and Engineering Research, The University of Memphis, Memphis, United States;
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Memphis, Memphis, United States
Wenresti Gallardo Department of Marine Science and Fisheries, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
Ameenah Gurib-Fakim Women Leadership, John Wesley School of Leadership, Carolina University, Winston-Salem, USA; Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius
Rokiatou Haidara Pan-African University Institute for Water and Energy Sciences (PAUWES), Tlemcen, Algeria
Jan W. Hopmans Soil Science and Irrigation Water Management, University of California Davis, Davis, USA
Zakir Hussain Metropolitan College of New York, New York, NY, USA; Grand Asian University, Sialkot, Pakistan
Md Saidul Islam Associate Professor of Sociology, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Edwin Kimutai Kanda Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya
Ashvini Kannan Environment and Sustainability Research Cluster, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Noor Muhammad Khan Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan; Civil Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Roohul Abad Khan Department of Civil Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
Susan Namaemba Kimokoti Department of Peace and Conflict Studies, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya
Pavneet Kaur Kingra Department of Climate Change and Agricultural Meteorology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
Rakhshanda Kousar Institute of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Surinder Singh Kukal Punjab Water Regulation and Development Authority, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, India
Yasemin Kuslu Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, University of Atatürk, Erzurum, Turkey
Lynette Loh Environment and Sustainability Research Cluster, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Syed Amer Mahmood Department of Space Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Muhammad Sohail Amjad Makhdum Department of Economics, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Hidayat Mohammedi Pan-African University Institute for Water and Energy Sciences (PAUWES), Tlemcen, Algeria
Adeel Mukhtar School of Public Policy, Oregon State University (OSU), Corvallis, USA
M. M. M. Najim Southeastern University of Sri Lanka, Oluvil, Sri Lanka
Muhammad Nawaz Khan Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI), Islamabad, Pakistan
Safdar Ali Shirazi Department of Geography, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Josephine Toh Environment and Sustainability Research Cluster, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABHT Tensift Basin Hydraulic Agency
ASAL Arid or Semi-Arid Land
AVA Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore
AWD Alternate Wetting and Drying
CFA Continuous Flow Analyzer
CNRST Moroccan Center for Scientific and Technical Research
COA Court of Arbitration
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CSA Climate-Smart Agriculture
CWANA Central and West Asia and North Africa
CWP Crop Water Productivity
CWU Consumptive Water Use
DCR Diversified Crop Rotation
DIs Drought Indices
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
ET Evapotranspiration
FACE Free Air Carbon Enrichment
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GCM Global Climate Models
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GMWL Global Meteoric Water Line
GPR Ground Penetrating Radar
GWA Genome-Wide Association
GWAVA Global Water AVailability Assessment
GWP Global Warming Potential
ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
ICIMOD Integrated Mountain Development
ICJ International Court of Justice
IIASA International Institute for Applied System Analysis
IMD India Meteorological Department
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Europe until the eleventh century, when R. Gershom anathematized it. In the place just cited we find a similar statement:—
“In a place where the custom is to marry only one wife, it is not permitted to marry more than one woman. R. Gershom anathematized any one that should many a second, whilst his wife was alive; but this anathema does not extend to the case of the widow of a brother, who has died without children, nor to the case of a woman who is only betrothed. This ordinance, however, does not obtain in all lands, and the anathema was only to last until the end of the fifth thousand years.” Hence it appears that before R. Gershom, polygamy was lawful and practised by the Jews in Europe, but that he forbade it except in particular cases; and further, that R. Gershom’s prohibition was only temporary, it was to have full force until the end of the fifth thousand years, that is, until the year 1240 of the Christian era. This period is how long past, for the Jews reckon this year 5597, and Gershom’s anathema has therefore lost its force; consequently, the only obstacle, which their religion opposed to polygamy has been removed, and, so far as conscience is concerned, every professor of Judaism must feel himself at liberty to marry as many wives as he likes. He knows that R. Gershom’s anathema has expired, and if he goes to the codes of Jewish law, he finds that it is left doubtful. For instance, the note on the passage just cited says—
“Nevertheless, in all these countries the ordinance and the custom remain in force, and it is not lawful to marry two wives; and he that transgresses and does so is to be compelled by anathema and excommunication to divorce one of them. But some say that in the present time he that transgresses the anathema of R. Gershom is
not to be compelled, for the five thousand years have been completed long since; but the custom is not according to this.” Here then are two opinions. The most strict of the two is, that polygamy is now not lawful, and that he who marries two wives must divorce one of them: but even this cannot be very satisfactory to the woman whom he first married, for it does not define which of the two is to be divorced. It only requires that one of them should be divorced, and leaves it to the man himself to divorce which he pleases. The other opinion is, that polygamy is now lawful, and that he is not to be compelled to divorce either Hence it appears that it is not Judaism which protects the rights and the happiness of Jewish women, or the peace and comfort of Jewish families. The influence and the laws of Christianity forbid polygamy. To Christianity, then, Jewish females are indebted, not only for the station which they hold in society, but for the peace which they enjoy in their homes. Wherever Christianity has no power, there the Jews may take as many wives as they please: and if ever Judaism should obtain supreme power, Jewesses must expect to be again degraded into the category of slaves and Amharatzin, and to have their domestic peace annihilated by the introduction of new wives and families. It may be replied, that this objection applies with equal force to the written law, for that Moses himself allows polygamy. But to this we answer, that Moses only tolerated polygamy, but that he shows clearly that it was not the purpose of God, that men should have more wives than one. He found an evil custom existing amongst a people debased by Egyptian slavery, and like a wise reformer, he did not commence his improvements by destroying all that existed, but endeavoured to restrain the evil, to show that it was contrary to God’s original institution, and to point out the consequences. He did not immediately pronounce it unlawful, for that would have been attended with serious inconveniences, but by the direction of God gave laws to protect the wives and children. In the beginning of Genesis—he showed that God’s will was, that a man should have only one wife, for that he did not create several women, but only one. He gives the words of God, saying, “It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him”
where “help” is in the singular number, to show that man was not to
have more than one help meet for him. And again, those words, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,” not unto his wives, but to his wife; where it is also to be observed, that God is laying down a law, not for Adam only, but for coming generations. By exhibiting the original institution of marriage in Paradise, whilst man was yet innocent, and stating the original law and purpose of God, Moses plainly showed, that God’s will was, that a man should have only one wife. He then goes on to show, that the first who departed from this original institution was Lamech, one of the wicked descendants of wicked Cain. “And Lamech took unto him two wives,” (Gen. iv. 19,) whom he held up as a warning, recording of him only that he had two wives, and that he was a murderer. With this he contrasts the conduct of Noah and his sons, who had only one wife each. In the history of the patriarchs he shows the evil consequences of polygamy. He shows that it was not the will of Abraham to take a second wife, but that Sarah in her eagerness to have children misled him, and that discord and domestic trouble soon followed. And by all the troubles which the sons of Ishmael have since inflicted upon the children of Isaac, God has, in his providence, confirmed the moral to be drawn from the Mosaic narrative. Moses then points out the happiness of Isaac, who had only one wife; and the troubles of Jacob, who, not by his own choice, but by the wickedness of Laban and the folly of Laban’s daughters, had more than one; and last of all, Moses gave in himself an example of the conduct which he wished Israel to pursue by having only one wife himself. A careful examination, therefore, of the law of Moses will show that he only tolerated polygamy as an existing evil, but that he intended to discourage it, by exhibiting the original institution of marriage, and the many evils that result from a departure from God’s purpose. When, therefore, we show that the oral law permits men to have more wives than one, and that consequently it is accountable for all the evil thence resulting, we cannot be charged with reproaching the law of Moses. The oral law says expressly, that a man may marry many wives, even a hundred. The law of Moses nowhere says any thing of the kind. It only legislates in case that such a thing should happen. The oral law plainly advises a man not to take more than four wives. The law of
Moses holds up the evil of having more than one. If men would carefully read the law of Moses, they would see that the original intention was, that a man should have only one wife. But if a man follow the oral law, he will be encouraged to take as many as he can support. It is evident, therefore, that if the Jews in Europe do not practise polygamy, their conduct is not to be ascribed to the influence of Judaism, but of Christianity.
It is, further, evident that this Christian practice of having only one wife, cannot be objected to as an unauthorized alteration of the law of Moses. If R. Gershom was allowed to forbid polygamy, and the Jews considered themselves bound to obey him, they cannot reasonably object to the Christian laws on the same subject. Christianity has only effected by its influence what R. Gershom endeavoured to accomplish by anathema. The only difference is, that Christianity was first, and that R. Gershom learnt the evil of polygamy from Christians. If it was lawful for a rabbi, it was still more lawful for the Messiah to restore the original constitution of marriage as established in Paradise, and to deliver Jewish wives and families from all that confusion and discord which results from polygamy. But it is particularly deserving of notice that R. Gershom, by forbidding the Jews to have more wives than one, made a great and decided change in the oral law. That which the oral law allows, R. Gershom forbids. We grant, indeed, that by thus changing the oral law, he approximated to the mind and intention of Moses: but he altered the oral law, and thereby shows us that he himself did not believe that the oral law was to last for ever, or that it is of eternal obligation. If he had considered it unchangeable, he would not have dared to make the change; but by making so important a change as this, to forbid what it allows, he plainly shows it as his opinion, that where there is a grave reason, the oral law may be changed or abolished; and all the Jews who acquiesce in his ordinance, and think it is unlawful to marry more wives than one; consent to the change. But if it be lawful to change in one thing, it must also be lawful to change in another, so that the rabbinical Jews have no reason whatever for reproaching their brethren who renounce the oral law totally Such persons are only acting upon a principle practically acknowledged by all the Jews of Europe. It may be said that R. Gershom’s change was only
temporary, and that the present acquiescence of European Jews is only a sort of homage to Christian principles. This is certainly true, and this reply leads us to consider the dreary prospect presented to Jewish females, if ever modern Judaism should obtain power. The influence of Christian principle would then cease,—polygamy would again be lawful, and the matrons of Israel, who now appear as the participators in the family government and the guides of their households, would again be degraded into one of a herd of female slaves. They might have a hundred competitors and rivals in their husbands’ affections, and even if the husband should follow the advice of the rabbies, and take only four wives, they would at least have three. Now, we ask every matron in Israel whether she would wish such a change, or whether she would prefer the present state of things, where a man can have only one wife? If she prefers the present state, then she prefers the Christian principle, and acknowledges that Christianity is better than Judaism. If she does not wish for the restoration of polygamy, then she confesses that the doctrines of Judaism are injurious, and that she does not desire the triumph of her own religion. Then why should she profess a religion which she acknowledges to be prejudicial to her welfare—or why should she reject a religion which protects her peace and comfort? There can be no question, that Christianity has prevented amongst the Jews that practice of having many wives; it has, therefore, been a blessing to Jewish families for centuries; why, then, should they despise or oppose a religion which has been, and still is, a blessing? And we propose this question, not only to Jewish wives, but to Jewish husbands. Is it not a fact, that God’s original institution was that a man should have only one wife—does not Moses show that the first polygamist was a descendant of wicked Cain, and, that family discord and unhappiness is the consequence of having more wives than one? Does not reason, and the state of Mahometan countries, show that where there are many wives, woman is degraded, and the education of children necessarily neglected? Is not the moral, the intellectual, and scientific progress of mankind greatly superior in Christian countries, where men have only one wife? Is not, then, the practice of having only one wife a blessing? Has it not been a blessing to Jewish husbands, wives, and children?
Are not, then, the Jews deeply indebted to Christianity for that measure of peace and moral improvement which they have derived from this practice? And would not an adherence to their own oral law in the same degree have proved a disadvantage, if not a curse? How, then, can they oppose a religion which has been to them a blessing?—or how can they adhere to a religion which contains principles subversive of their domestic peace, and destructive to the well-being, and the moral and intellectual improvement of one-half the human race? The rabbies say, that the oral law is eternal in its obligation: if so, then polygamy is to be eternal in its continuance, and then men are never to return to that state of perfection which they enjoyed in Paradise. Who is there that does not see that the race of men was most happy when sin was unknown, and most perfect in intellect when he could hold converse with the Deity and dwell in the garden of God? But if Judaism be true, men are never again to enjoy that state, for then polygamy was unknown. Adam had only one wife; and until sin entered into the world, and ripened even into murder, no man had two wives. Judaism is, therefore, opposed to the pure and perfect state of things that existed in Paradise, and favourable to that confusion introduced by the murderous Lamech, the son of murderous Cain—and Christianity resembles, in its principles of marriage, the happy state ordained by God in Paradise. Here, then, we have another and a practical proof that the oral law is not of God. Its authors totally misunderstood the mind and purpose of Moses, the servant of God, and misinterpreted his temporary toleration of an existing evil into a positive permission and sanction for continuing it. We have also another proof of the divine origin of Christianity.
No. XLVIII. DIVORCE.
When God delivered the commandments at Sinai, he placed those which related to himself first, to teach us that our first duty is to love and serve him: and immediately after these he gave the command “Honour thy father and thy mother,” to show us that, next to himself, we are bound to reverence, to love, and to obey those to whom we owe our existence. This order of things was not an arbitrary choice, but founded in that natural constitution of creation which God ordained as most conducive to the intellectual and moral well-being as well as to the happiness of his creatures. He does not command us to love and serve Him, and Him only, merely because He has the light on the one hand, and it is our bounden duty on the other; but because a conformity to his will is an approximation both to wisdom and happiness. Neither does he tell us to honour father and mother, because we owe them all such reverence, as from them we have derived our being, and to them are indebted for all the care and affection with which they have tended and watched over our infancy; but because He has himself constituted the relation of parent and child, and ordained parental affection and filial duty as the means of promoting our welfare in time and in eternity. Any religion, therefore, whose tendency is to render obedience to that command impossible, must not only be contrary to the will of God, but to the happiness of man; and this is one of the many reasons for which we think that Judaism must be false. The religion of the oral law has a direct tendency to diminish a son’s respect for his mother. We do not mean to say that in this or any other Christian country Jewish sons despise their mothers. The co-existence of Christianity necessarily counteracts the development of rabbinical principles. We intend only
to exhibit the natural and necessary consequences, if there were no counteracting force. The contempt which the oral law pours upon women in general, and the encouragement which it gives to polygamy have necessarily the effect of lessening their respect both in the eyes of their husbands and their sons, and this tendency is still more increased by the rabbinic doctrine of divorce, which we now propose to consider. The law of Moses permits divorce under certain circumstances. It says, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness, רבד תור, in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house,” &c. (Deut. xxiv. 1.) But this permission, founded on grave and important considerations, the rabbies have perverted into an unlimited licence to divorce on the most trifling pretext.
“The school of Shamai says, A man is not to divorce his wife unless he shall find some uncleanness in her, for they interpret the verse according to its simple meaning, if she find no favour in his eyes on account of his finding some uncleanness in her. The school of Hillel thinks, that if a woman let the broth burn it is sufficient for they interpret the words, ‘a matter of uncleanness,’ to mean, Either uncleanness, or any other matter in which she has offended him. But R. Akiva thinks, that a man may divorce his wife, if he only find another handsomer than she is, for he interprets the verse thus, ‘If she find no favour in his eyes,’ where he explains favour to refer to the favour of beauty, or if he find a matter of uncleanness. But the legal decision is according to the school of Hillel, that is, if a wife sin against her husband, he may divorce her.” (Arbah Turim, Hilchoth Gittin., 1.) This monstrous passage is in itself sufficient to shake the authority of the oral law, for in the first place we find three grave authorities, Shamai, Hillel, and Akiva, all differing as to the sense of
a most important passage, bearing upon a subject that most nearly affects the happiness and well-being of human society. One of the gravest questions that can be propounded is, When is a man justified in divorcing his wife? If there be an oral law at all, it ought certainly to answer this question clearly, unequivocally, and satisfactorily. The existence of disputation shows that these three rabbies had no authoritative tradition on the subject, but were merely giving their own private opinions: and that therefore the assertion, that an oral law exists, is a mere fiction invented to impose upon the credulous, but insufficient to beget faith in any man or woman that will make use of the reason given by God. The old fable, that God caused a voice to be heard from heaven, saying, when the rabbies differ, “That
both speak the words of the living God,” will not do now. Every one can understand that God does not speak contradictions. No one will believe that the profane sentiment of R. Akiva, That a man may divorce his wife as soon as he finds another who pleases him better, can proceed from the God of holiness and justice. It is true that his opinion is not the law; but the opinion of Hillel, which is the law, is not a whit better. It pronounces that if a woman only spoil the broth she may be divorced: now this interpretation or the words of Moses is plainly contrary to the grammatical sense: תורﬠ is in Regimen (הכימס) and joined to רבדּ by a munach, and can therefore by no means be separated from it so as to signify “Either uncleanness or some other matter.” The words of Moses, the points, and the accents, all decide that there is only one cause for which a man may put away his wife. Hillel and his successors have wilfully passed by the plain sense of the Hebrew words, in their eagerness to obtain a facility for putting away their wives. They were not ignorant of the right sense, for that was plainly asserted by Shamai, but were determined to get rid of it; and such was the state of the Jews at the time, that they had influence enough to turn their false interpretation into law; and such has been the state of the Jews ever since, that it continues law to this very hour. A rabbinical Jew may, according to his religious tenets, turn away his wife, the mother of his children, on a pretext
that would hardly justify the dismissal of a servant. He may rudely tear asunder the sacred ties of conjugal affection, and separate between mother and children, if the unhappy woman should only make a mistake in her cookery. One of the worst charges brought against the slave-dealers was, that they had no respect either for maternal or filial affection; that they separated between mother and children. The very same accusation can be brought against modern Judaism, which legitimatizes the very same disregard for the feelings of a mother. Can, then, such a religion, which thus daringly snaps the ties of nature, be from God? Is it possible that God should thus expose one half of his rational creatures to the caprice and the tyranny of those who ought to be their defenders and protectors from every insult and every harm? If the same right were given to women, though the laws would be most contrary to the divine institution of marriage, it would at least have the appearance of justice; but this is denied. The oral law says,—
“The words, ‘If she find no favour in his eyes,’ teach, that the husband does not divorce except voluntarily; and if the woman be divorced against his will, she is not divorced. But the woman is divorced with or without her will.” (Jad Hachazakah Hilchoth, Gerushin, c. 1, 2.) According to this doctrine the happiness of the wife and the children is absolutely vested in the power of the man; and in any paroxysm of ill-humour, he may make them both unhappy for life; he may turn the mother out of her home, drive her forth like a criminal from the bosom of her family, and introduce a stranger. Who does not see that this is a power unfit to be trusted to the hands of any man or any people? We do not mean to impute anything peculiar to the Jews; we believe that as to their natural propensities, humours, and caprices, all men are much alike, and that therefore none ought to have the power of thus lightly breaking up the domestic constitution. It is no answer to this to say, that in this country divorce is not so lightly practised. Thanks to the power of Christian principle and the existence of Christian laws, it cannot be. But every one, who has had much opportunity of seeing rabbinical
Jews, knows that divorce is practised amongst them with a facility and frequency that is astonishing. But this is not the question; we are not examining Jewish manners, but the modern Jewish religion; and if divorce had never been practised, we should still pronounce of the oral law, which inculcates such principles, that it cannot be from God; and of its authors that they were bad men, or they would never have thus trifled with God’s most holy institution. The truth is, that the rabbies were altogether ignorant of the nature of marriage as God established it. They not only allow divorce on the most trifling pretext, but they sanction the practice of marrying for a given length of time, and, when that time is expired, of dissolving the marriage by divorce:
“A man must not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her; but, if he previously inform her that he is going to marry her for a season, it is lawful.” (Hilchoth Gittin in Even Haezer, 1.) Now how contrary is such doctrine to the express words of Scripture. “This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. ii. 23.) Here Adam, in his state of innocence, pronounces that the tie of marriage is more sacred and more binding, than even that which exists between parent and child. A man may, and for his wife’s sake shall, forsake father and mother, but should no more think of separating from his wife, than from his own bones and flesh. Who would lightly think of parting with a limb, or a portion of his body? Urgent, indeed, must be the necessity that will induce a man to permit the separation of a portion of himself, and equally urgent should be the cause that should move a man to part with her who is bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh. Such is the Mosaic doctrine of the marriage obligation; but so little did the rabbies understand it, that they permit a man to marry for a week, a month, or a year; and when that season is expired, to tear asunder the sacred ties, and that without any cause whatever. But the evident evil that must result from the rabbinic doctrine of divorce is still more apparent from the first sentence of the passage last quoted—“A man
must not marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her.” These words show the direct tendency of the doctrine. When power is given to a man to turn out his wife when he likes, a temptation is at once held out to the evil-disposed to marry with the express intention of divorcing. The rabbies, therefore, find it necessary to forbid it; but is it likely that this prohibition will have much force in the eyes of a man who is wicked enough to form the intention? And suppose a wicked man does form the intention, and execute it, what remedy had the poor injured woman? Thus the oral law leaves the daughters of Israel completely at the mercy of the unprincipled, and places them beyond this possibility of obtaining justice.
But the cruelty and total want of feeling which the oral law displays and teaches, with regard to women, appears still more plainly from the following extract:—
“If a man’s wife should become deaf and dumb, he gives her a bill of divorce, and she is divorced. But if she become insane, he is not to send her forth until she is recovered: and this thing is an ordinance of the wise men, that she should not become a prey to the immodest, because she is not able to take care of herself. The husband therefore, leaves her where she is, and marries another, and gives her meat and drink out of her own property. But he is not to be compelled to give her food and raiment, and duty of marriage, for it is not in the power of a sane person to dwell in one house with the insane. Neither is he obligated to have her cured, nor to ransom her. But if he should divorce her, then she is divorced, and is to be put out of his house: and he is not obligated to return and take any trouble about her.” (Hilchoth Gerushin, x. 23.) Principles more contrary to God’s Word, and to the common feelings of humanity, were never inculcated under the name of religion. We have been astonished at the cruelty with which the oral law treats Gentiles—we
have been horrified at the coolness with which it speaks of splitting open an Amhaaretz—but here it surpasses itself, and out-herods Herod. A man accustomed to judge of his duty by the words of Moses and the prophets, or even to follow toe dictates of unsophisticated nature, would conclude that, as he is at all times bound to love and cherish his wife, the obligation is doubly imperative in case of sickness, but especially so when that sorest calamity with which human frailty is visited, insanity, attacks the partner of his life. Then it is that the man, who has one spark of the fear of God or of the love of man, will show all his tenderness, watch over the sufferer with all care and anxiety, and if necessary, devote all his worldly goods to minister to her recovery. No, says the oral law, when the wife of your bosom most requires your attention, then marry another: give her neither food nor raiment, and, if you please, cast her out of your house, and leave her to her fate. The most charitable conclusion would be, to suppose that the men who uttered such sentiments under the mask of religion, were themselves insane. But what are we to think of Israel, that for eighteen hundred years they have been unable to detect so manifest an imposture? And what are we to think of Israel at present, that they sit still and suffer their children to be deluded, by being taught that this most atrocious system of inhumanity, is that pure and holy religion which the God of Israel revealed to Moses? Let not any Israelite mistake us. We do not mean to charge such wickedness upon them. The Providence of God has in a measure delivered them from such an odious yoke. The influence of Christianity has successfully counteracted the full development of these anti-human principles. We only mean to direct their attention to the nature of that religion to which they have adhered so long; and to induce them to consider what would be the state of the world, if Jesus of Nazareth had not arisen to protest against such gross corruptions, and to assert the truth. Just suppose that the traditions had triumphed. The universal law would then be, that men might divorce their wives when they please, and in the time of their calamity cast them forth into the streets. All the bonds of natural affection would be rent asunder. Conjugal affection would cease, filial duty be unknown—no son would honour his mother, for how could a son honour the unhappy
being whom his religion pronounces unworthy either of succour or compassion in the time of her utmost need? If such principles had attained dominion, mankind would have been turned into a race of fiends, and this earth have become a hell. What, then, has stopped all this misery? Christianity, and Christianity alone. It teaches very different principles. When a Christian man is married, the vow which he is required to make is this—“Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?” This is the doctrine of the New Testament. The Pharisees asked the Lord Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. xix. 3-7.) In like manner, Paul teaches, “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” (Ephes. v. 28.) And Peter teaches in the same spirit, “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” (1 Peter iii. 7.)
Let any unprejudiced, yea, or any prejudiced, man, if he have only the use of his senses, compare these two doctrines, and say which is most agreeable to the will and character of God, as revealed in the Old Testament—and, which is most calculated to promote the happiness of the human race. The combination of mercy and justice forms a striking feature in the revealed character of God, but is there either justice or mercy in the laws which we have just considered? The happiness of the human race depends, in a more than ordinary measure, upon the right organization of the family relations: but how can there be any such thing as domestic order or peace, so long as the mother is looked upon as belonging to an inferior caste, whom it is permitted at any moment, even in the most afflictive of all
visitations, to outlaw, and drive forth from the family circle? The uncontrolled dominion of the oral law would practically annihilate all the sympathies and consolations of the domestic constitution. The husband could not love the wife whom his religion teaches to despise, and forbids to pity. The wife could not love the husband, whom she must suspect not only of being destitute of affection, but devoid of pity; and from whom she could only expect divorce and expulsion in the hour of calamity. The son would learn to despise his mother, whom his religion marks out as a fit object for contempt, and a suitable victim for the exercise of cruelty The mother, cast out by her own partner, would not even have the consolation of being pitied by her own children. A false religion would have taught them that this unnatural conduct was only obedience to the Divine will. The principles of Christianity, on the contrary, produce and protect all that domestic happiness which distinguishes Christian countries from the rest of the world; and in which Jews participate. The influence of Christianity has prevented that misery of which we have given but a faint outline. Can, then, the Jews deny that Christianity has been, and is, to them a blessing? or that it is, in its principles and effects, more agreeable to the character of God, and more productive of human happiness, and therefore more excellent and more true than modern Judaism.
No. XLIX.
RABBINIC LAWS CONCERNING MEAT.
Conscientious adherence to the dictates of true religion is one of the noblest traits that can adorn the human character, and this trait has appeared in its most vivid light in not a few of the Israelite nation. Elijah the prophet, for instance, is a bright example of religious constancy. At a time when all Israel had forsaken the true God, and zealously professed a false religion, neither the allurements of selfinterest, nor the power of universal example, nor the natural desire of self-preservation, could draw him aside from the paths of truth and righteousness. Daniel and his three friends in Babylon exhibit the same unwavering firmness in the assertion of truth. The Royal dainties could not prevail upon them to partake of food offered to idols. The fiery furnace could not terrify Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, to commit idolatry; the lions’ den possessed no terrors that could move Daniel to omit the worship of his God. But as constancy for the truth ennobles and adorns, in the very same degree an obstinate perseverance in error diminishes from man’s moral or intellectual value. It shows either that his moral perception is so blunted as to be unable to discern between truth and error, or his moral taste so perverted as not to care for the difference—or that there is some intellectual deficiency which renders the moral powers inoperative. It leads to the suspicion that there is something wrong either with the head or the heart. There is, however, a class of persons, who persevere in error, not because the head is weak, or the heart sick, but because they have never fairly beheld the light of truth. They have grown up in a mist of error, and circumstances have prevented them from emerging into a purer atmosphere. To this class, we would hope, the professors of modern Judaism belong.
That they have been for centuries in error is certain. Many incontestable proofs of this have been already advanced; The rabbinic laws concerning הטיחש, or the slaughtering of animals, will add another link to the chain of evidence. The Rabbinists have an idea that wherever they may be wrong, in this doctrine they are infallibly in the right; and yet, if the force of education did not afford some aid, it would be impossible to imagine how they can be deceived by a doctrine so manifestly false, and so entirely devoid of Scriptural foundation. In the first place, the slaughtering of beasts is, like eating, of every-day and universal concernment—a matter that affects the poor and unlearned as much as the studious; and yet the rabbinic rules are so many and so intricate that either a man must be learned himself, or employ a man of competent learning, to perform this business; or, he must, in spite of himself, turn Pythagorean and renounce the use of animal food. The oral law gives the following outline of what is to be understood by the word הטיחש or slaughtering:—
“It is absolutely necessary to explain the killing (or slaughtering mentioned in the law), and to know, in what part of the beast one slaughters—what is the measure of the slaughtering—with what implement one slaughters—when—where—and how one slaughters —what things they are which invalidate the act of slaughtering—and who is permitted to slaughter Concerning all these things, He has commanded us in the law where it is said, ‘Then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after!’ (Deut. xii. 21.)” (Jad Hachazakah, Hilchoth Shechitah, c. i. 4.) Here we have at once a list of eight particulars, which must first be known, but then most of these again require a long and learned explanation; for instance the first is thus defined:—
“On what part of the animal is the slaughtering to be effected? On the wind-pipe, from the edge of the uvula downwards as far as the top or the extremity of the lungs, as these parts are situated when the beast stretches out its neck to feed: this is the place of the slaughtering in the wind-pipe; and all the part outside which answers to this place, is called the neck. If the beast forces itself and stretches out its neck much, or if the slaughterer has forced the sinews, and drawn them upwards, and he slaughters at the right part of the neck, but afterwards it is found that the wind-pipe or the œsophagus is not cut at the right place, then it is a doubtful case of carrion.” (Ibid. 7.) In like manner, the measure of the slaughtering is accurately defined, and must be as accurately attended to, or else the slaughtering must be considered unlawful, and then it becomes unlawful for the Rabbinists to eat it. But the most care is required in examining the knife, which may be of any material that will cut, on condition that there be no gap in it:—
“But if there be anything like a furrow in the edge of the implement wherewith the slaughtering is effected, even though the furrow be the least possible, the slaughtering is unlawful.” The slaughterer is therefore required to examine the knife before and after the act; for if a gap be found in it after the slaughtering, it is doubtful whether the beast is not be considered carrion:—
“Therefore he that has to slaughter many beasts or many fowls, must examine the knife after each; for if he does not, but examines at the end, and the knife is found to have a gap, then all are to be
considered as doubtful carrion, even the first.” (Ibid. 24.) From these few particulars, it appears that great care, and not a little study and practice, are required in order to slaughter an animal for food according to the oral law, and that it is very easy, by mistake or want of knowledge, to make the meat unfit for rabbinic eating: but then, besides all this, there are the five circumstances which invalidate the slaughtering altogether:—
“There are five things which invalidate the slaughtering: and the most important thing respecting the constitutions of slaughtering is, to attend to each one of them, and these are they—1st, If the person makes a stop of a certain length before the act is completed. 2d, If the throat be cut at a single blow, as with a sword. 3d, If the knife enters too deep, and is hidden. 4th, When the knife slips up or down from the right place. 5th, When the wind-pipe or œsophagus is torn and comes out, before the act is completed.” (Ibid. c. iii.) These five essentials of rabbinic slaughtering lead again to endless questions and definitions; so that, putting all together, it is much to be doubted whether a beast ever was, or ever will be, rightly slaughtered according to the oral law. And yet these things, of which there is not the slightest mention in the Mosaic law, are tied like a heavy burden about the necks of the poor and ignorant, and are most oppressive to their bodies and their souls. The rich may not, perhaps, feel the oppression, but the poor sigh and groan under the load; and no man considers their sorrow, or stretches out a hand to help them. In the first place, the intricacy of the act always makes rabbinic meat a great deal dearer than other meat, so that the poor man and his family, who can at any time, or under any circumstances, afford to buy but little food, are compelled by the oral law to do with still less, and in many cases to do without it altogether. Let any one visit the haunts of the poor Jews in this city, or enter their abodes, and he will find many a wretched family pining away for want of proper food; and yet it is too dear to procure a sufficiency; and if any benevolent Christian should wish to assist them, offer them some of his own, or give them a ticket to some of those institutions which distribute meat
to the poor, the starving family would not dare to accept it, even if their conscience allowed them, or if they did, would inevitably draw down upon themselves a storm of persecution, and be treated as if they had committed the greatest crimes: yea, if the oral law had power, the poor starving creatures, that had partaken of Christian bounty, would be flogged for satisfying the wants of nature:—
“If a Gentile slaughters, even though he does it in the presence of an Israelite, with a proper knife, his slaughtering is carrion; and he that eats of it is to be flogged according to the written law, for it is said, ‘And one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.’ (Exod. xxxiv. 15.)”
Yea, the oral law goes so far as to extend this rule even to the case of a Gentile who is not an idolater:—
“A very strong fence has been made round this matter, so that the slaughtering even of a Gentile, who is not on idolater, is carrion.” (Ibid., c. iv. 11, 12.) It is hardly necessary to say, that the above quotation from the oral law is now-a-days altogether out of place. Moses was not speaking of Christians nor of the inhabitants of these countries, but of the nations of Canaan. He had been declaring the words of the Lord, “Behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite.” And then adds, “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.” (Exod. xxxiv. 11-15.) So then, according to the oral law, because Moses forbade the Israelites to partake of the idolatrous sacrifices of the Hivites and the Jebusites, a poor famished creature here in London is not to touch Christian meat, nor to partake of Christian bounty. A more cruel or oppressive law could hardly have been devised. It is all very well for the rich, but it is very little short of murder to the poor. It binds their consciences with fetters of iron, so that even when relief is offered, many turn from good and wholesome food sent to them by a kind Providence; and if a spark of
